Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
TPM ...
I "guessed" batting average, but I suspect some will say it depends on the position ... some infield positions are looked to for power, some for average, and critically good defense may outweigh the batting abilities to some extent for the middle infielders; likewise, I have even heard that different things are expected from the different positions.
I think both of these "college stats" threads are good topics for discussion, and it will be interesting to see what others have to say ... tho I suspect that there will be a multitude of differing opinions.
I "guessed" batting average, but I suspect some will say it depends on the position ... some infield positions are looked to for power, some for average, and critically good defense may outweigh the batting abilities to some extent for the middle infielders; likewise, I have even heard that different things are expected from the different positions.
I think both of these "college stats" threads are good topics for discussion, and it will be interesting to see what others have to say ... tho I suspect that there will be a multitude of differing opinions.
quote:Originally posted by FutureBack.Mom:
TPM ...
I "guessed" batting average, but I suspect some will say it depends on the position ... some infield positions are looked to for power, some for average, and critically good defense may outweigh the batting abilities to some extent for the middle infielders; likewise, I have even heard that different things are expected from the different positions.
I think both of these "college stats" threads are good topics for discussion, and it will be interesting to see what others have to say ... tho I suspect that there will be a multitude of differing opinions.
FBM,
I am finding the whole thing quite puzzling, and glad I do not scout for a living.
I thought it was hard trying to define top pitching prospects while position players being easier, not so, when you look at all the factors, not just stats.
Just as scouts are in love with velocity, they are also in love with power hitters. Many will claim that they look for line drive hitters, but don't be fooled.
Scouts have worried me for years since they started leading off their comments with 'tall, good looking kid'.
Scouts have worried me for years since they started leading off their comments with 'tall, good looking kid'.
WillieBobo,
JMO. Along with all the other things, my understanding is that the "face" or the "look" has to go along with it as well.
JMO. Along with all the other things, my understanding is that the "face" or the "look" has to go along with it as well.
You would think that the attractiveness of an individual would have little to imply baseball talent.
I have seen the game change over the years along with our society.
Give me a scout who starts and continues with baseball attributes any day of the week.
I have seen the game change over the years along with our society.
Give me a scout who starts and continues with baseball attributes any day of the week.
When my son was looking at going to a JUCO, he had a well respected DI coach tell him very sincerely, "If you spend two years in this "JUCO" league (strong league), at the end of that time if you are hitting .350 or better, you know that you are DI material. If you're only hitting .270, then you'll probably be looking at DII or DIII.
I voted for batting average.
I voted for batting average.
Doug may well let us know, but I would suspect that when a scout says "good looking kid", it probably has more to do with the player having a baseball body and the accompanying athletic movement than how (shall we say)attractive he is.
Or maybe Randy Johnson's cards started out "ugly as the back of a bus"....
Or maybe Randy Johnson's cards started out "ugly as the back of a bus"....
If they have tools and play well enough... They are good looking kids in my book! 
If they look like a "movie star" but can't play well enough. They are a good looking kid... who won't play baseball at the professional level.
Same goes for "tall".
If they look like a "movie star" but can't play well enough. They are a good looking kid... who won't play baseball at the professional level.
Same goes for "tall".
How about OB% compared to BA%?
I think the "look" test means size/stature. My older son is a 1b/P and when he was a high school junior, and 6'4", 205 lbs, a scout told him as they shook hands, "you certainly pass the eye test".
I don't think it means ugly, or quite a few MLB guys wouldn't be there.....
I don't think it means ugly, or quite a few MLB guys wouldn't be there.....
Billy Beene (Money Ball) would say it's OB%. Ya left that one out.. 
quote:Originally posted by Bullwinkle:
How about OB% compared to BA%?
changed it now you can vote...lol
I wouldn't vote for any of them...I had a career .280 hitter bat .432 last year...now I know I'm a genius hitting coach :-) but lets say there's a reason his nickname was "rick FLAIR" he muscled so many balls over the IF that fell in...BA can be misleading...we use a "hard-hit ball chart" that tells us if someone has solid contact a 9 for line drives down though a 0 for a strikeout...our best hitters should average out over a 6...if anybody wants more detail I'd be happy to pass it on! ohh my vote..."none of the above" hard contact is the best way to tell a players abilities!
What about OPS? That would take into account the "hard hit ball", the batting avg, and the ability to draw BB.
JT,
the problem is what if someone goes 2-10 with 8 line outs to the shortstop, compared with a guys who goes 6-10 with 6 bloops over the 2nd baseman's head...who's hitting the ball better? guy #1 with 8 lineouts even though he's not getting on base!
the problem is what if someone goes 2-10 with 8 line outs to the shortstop, compared with a guys who goes 6-10 with 6 bloops over the 2nd baseman's head...who's hitting the ball better? guy #1 with 8 lineouts even though he's not getting on base!
I read an article by Joe Morgan a few weeks ago in which he said that Runs scored plu RBI's was the best measure of a player's value to his team. His reasoning was that a good hitter either scores runs or drives them in, and a great hitter does both. Makes some sense in that you can't score if you're not on base (by whatever means)so that takes into account on base percentage, and if guys are in scoring position when you're at the plate your job is to drive them in. Get the stat sheet of your favorite team and add guys runs and RBI's and see who you come up with as your offensive leaders. It's a pretty interesting way of looking at it.
I didn’t answer because I don’t know the answer. I might add that there are many aspects of a position player that don’t show up on his hitting stats. Different positions also tend to produce different types of players. For instance the first baseman’s stats and the centerfielder’s stats probably won’t be compared to each other. The same goes for the catcher and the second baseman. We also have to consider the NEEDS of the recruiting club and how a player projects. The first baseman with 15 homeruns may be a 3rd round pick with team A but be considered a higher pick by team “B” because their needs are different. Stats are important but probably are only used as an indicator.
Lefty dad says:
Since we are talking about a college position player's importance as a professional, maybe we should compare professional player's W-2's and use that as a guide as to determine what stat is the most important.
Fungo
Lefty dad says:
quote:Get the stat sheet of your favorite team and add guys runs and RBI's and see who you come up with as your offensive leaders.
Since we are talking about a college position player's importance as a professional, maybe we should compare professional player's W-2's and use that as a guide as to determine what stat is the most important.
Fungo
Lefty,
I like the Runs plus RBI's truly the answer is "in the eyes of the beholder" I think it just depends on who's looking, and what they are looking for?
I like the Runs plus RBI's truly the answer is "in the eyes of the beholder" I think it just depends on who's looking, and what they are looking for?
quote:the problem is what if someone goes 2-10 with 8 line outs to the shortstop, compared with a guys who goes 6-10 with 6 bloops over the 2nd baseman's head...who's hitting the ball better? guy #1 with 8 lineouts even though he's not getting on base!
OPS naturally includes hard hit balls because it factors slugging percentage, and a high slugging% is a naturally unflukey stat...i.e. Its impossible to get a high percentage of fluke extra base hits.
And sure.... in any 2/3 games bloops can fall for one guy, while liners are caught for someone else, but after 100 plate appearances, everything starts to even out
No single stat tells everything, but I'll take a maximum OPS, especially because it tends to force the pitcher to throw from the stretch/pay attention to the runner, use more pitches, and restricts the pitchers' ability to nibble corners for fear of putting two men on base.
Wow, I can't believe the poll results I saw. This is an easy one. RBI's are the most important stats in hitting. You win by scoring runs. I like on-base % too but I would rather have a player hit .300 with 50 RBI's than one hit .400 with 20 RBI's. Think about it.
L-Tex, I thought about it
if the .400 guy is not leaving "a small village" on base, I fugure I got him in the wrong slot & swap him with the .300 guy expecting his RBIs should about double
if the .400 guy is not leaving "a small village" on base, I fugure I got him in the wrong slot & swap him with the .300 guy expecting his RBIs should about double
Chairman, that swap is not a "sure thing", but RBI's are!
Why go for one outstanding stat when you can get a real package. When I look at the top hitters in hs the one thing I have noticed is that there are lots of good hitters (avg) who also can hit with power. The RBI leaders are also often the same top hitters.
A good average and hitting for power are not mutually exclusive.
It is seldom a case where you pick between a kid with a .200 avg who has 25 HR and the kid who has a .400 avg and 0 HR. There are plenty of .350 hitters that have 10-15 HR.
And I agree with Chairman - If I have a kid with a great avg and few RBI's you either need to move him in the line up - or you simply don't have anyone else who gets on base consistently.
RBI's are a team effort. You can have an .800 avg and if you consistently come up to the plate with the bases empty you still won't have any RBIs (unless of course you are a power hitter and hit yourself in).
There is only way someone with a low avg can get lots of RBI's. He has to be on a team that puts a lot of players on base. That way when he hits there is always someone there to hit in. However, that means when he doesn't hit (which happens more often) - he's leaving a lot of guys stranded.
A good average and hitting for power are not mutually exclusive.
It is seldom a case where you pick between a kid with a .200 avg who has 25 HR and the kid who has a .400 avg and 0 HR. There are plenty of .350 hitters that have 10-15 HR.
And I agree with Chairman - If I have a kid with a great avg and few RBI's you either need to move him in the line up - or you simply don't have anyone else who gets on base consistently.
RBI's are a team effort. You can have an .800 avg and if you consistently come up to the plate with the bases empty you still won't have any RBIs (unless of course you are a power hitter and hit yourself in).
There is only way someone with a low avg can get lots of RBI's. He has to be on a team that puts a lot of players on base. That way when he hits there is always someone there to hit in. However, that means when he doesn't hit (which happens more often) - he's leaving a lot of guys stranded.
You are right that you have to look at the total package, but out of the above choices, I look at the slugging percentage. How many bases are you worth to your team. Here's where it gets tricky though, let's say you hit "tweeners" all day, but then you steal 40 bases. Man, is anyone else getting as confused as I am?
I also agree with Fungo on the W-2 comment. reminds me of a story I heard about Brett Boone. Some fans were heckling him about being short, and he told them "you should see how tall I am when I'm standing on my wallet"
The name of the game is to score more runs than your opponent, not get more hits.... Go read moneyball and see what they have to say about statistical analysis....
Most analysis I've seen tend to say OPS has the most affect on the number of runs a TEAM scores.
But as we all know... Texas scores a lot of runs... and not too many championships.
Runs and RBIs are not "self" determined. (other than HR) Can't get RBI without some one on base ahead of you... Nor score runs without someone hitting behind you. So the same player will have higher numbers of both if the players around him are better.
So team has a lot to do with individual Statistics of Runs and RBIs... Just ask any Fantasy league owner... Historically. YOU go and pick TEXAS Ranger, and Boston Red Sox hitters, (typically AL) and Atlanta and St Louis or Dodger Pitchers.. (NL)
So I go back to statisticians and they've shown that both OBP and SLG or now termed OPS has the greatest affect on scoring runs, which is offense's job.
Most analysis I've seen tend to say OPS has the most affect on the number of runs a TEAM scores.
But as we all know... Texas scores a lot of runs... and not too many championships.
Runs and RBIs are not "self" determined. (other than HR) Can't get RBI without some one on base ahead of you... Nor score runs without someone hitting behind you. So the same player will have higher numbers of both if the players around him are better.
So team has a lot to do with individual Statistics of Runs and RBIs... Just ask any Fantasy league owner... Historically. YOU go and pick TEXAS Ranger, and Boston Red Sox hitters, (typically AL) and Atlanta and St Louis or Dodger Pitchers.. (NL)
So I go back to statisticians and they've shown that both OBP and SLG or now termed OPS has the greatest affect on scoring runs, which is offense's job.